Show Summary Details

Page of

 Printed from Grove Art Online. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).

Subscriber: null; date: 08 December 2019

Ingres, Jean-Auguste-Dominique locked

(b Montauban, Aug 29, 1780; d Paris, Jan 14, 1867).
  • Patricia Condon

French painter. He was the last grand champion of the French classical tradition of history painting. He was traditionally presented as the opposing force to Delacroix in the early 19th-century confrontation of Neo-classicism and Romanticism, but subsequent assessment has shown the degree to which Ingres, like Neo-classicism, is a manifestation of the Romantic spirit permeating the age. The chronology of Ingres’s work is complicated by his obsessive perfectionism, which resulted in multiple versions of a subject and revisions of the original. For this reason, all works cited in this article are identified by catalogue raisonné number: Wildenstein (w) for paintings; Naef (n) for portrait drawings; and Delaborde (d) for history drawings.

I. Life and work.

1. Montauban, Toulouse and Paris, 1780–1806.

His father, Jean-Marie-Joseph Ingres (1755–1814), a decorative painter and sculptor as well as an amateur musician, taught him the basics of drawing and also the violin. In accord with contemporary academic practice, Ingres devoted much of his attention to copying from his father’s collection of prints after such masters as Raphael, Titian, Correggio, Rubens, Watteau and Boucher; none of these copies survives. The earliest known drawings, some signed Ingres fils, are portrait sketches and miniatures of family members and Montauban acquaintances (n 1–8). He studied at the academy in Toulouse with the history painter Guillaume-Joseph Roques and the sculptor Jean-Pierre Vigan (d 1829): only a selection of school drawings remains and some records of prizes for excellence in ‘composition’, ‘figures and antique’, ‘rounded figure’ and ‘life studies’. He studied landscape painting with Jean Briant (1760–99) and continued his musical training. His entry into the Paris studio of David in 1797 brought him into contact with the most talented artists of his generation—among David’s former students still frequenting the studio were Jean-Germain Drouais, François-Xavier Fabre, Anne-Louis Girodet and Antoine-Jean Gros; studying at the same time as Ingres were Lorenzo Bartolini, Etienne-Jean Delécluze, Auguste Forbin, François-Marius Granet, Jean-Pierre Granger (1779–1840), Charles Langlois, Fleury Richard and Pierre Revoil. Signed and/or dated works from this period are scarce. It was in David’s studio that the principles of the German theorist Johann Joachim Winckelmann and his apotheosis of Greek art became part of Ingres’s artistic credo and that he first became aware of the beauty inherent in the work of such Italian painters as Giotto, Masaccio, Fra Angelico and Perugino. During the next five years Ingres found his own eclectic balance of these stylistic contradictions, to which he added a personal elevation of Raphael as the ultimate classical ideal. He trained his eye to be as acute as David’s and sought an even greater degree of historical authenticity.

In 1801 Ingres won the Prix de Rome with the Envoys of Agamemnon(w 7, 1801; Paris, Ecole N. Sup. B.-A.), which John Flaxman described as the best painting he had seen from the modern French school. Subsequently Flaxman’s illustrations to Homer and Dante became a staple in Ingres’s artistic diet, reinforcing his natural proclivity for abstract linearity. Venus Wounded by Diomedes (w 28, c. 1804–6; Basle, Kstmus.) was painted in direct emulation of Flaxman. Ingres could not immediately claim his prize as the Académie de France in Rome had yet to be funded by the government. He was given a small bursary and studio space and a share of available government portrait and copy commissions. In July 1803 he received the commission for a portrait of Bonaparte as First Consul (w14, 1804; Liège, Mus. B.-A.) for the city of Liège, the first acknowledgement that he was becoming one of the leading portraitists of his time.

At the end of 1805 funds were made available for the Prix de Rome stipends. However, Ingres delayed his departure until the last possible moment, submitting five portraits to the Salon of 1806 just before it opened: a Self-portrait Aged 24 (w 17, 1804; Chantilly, Mus. Condé); portraits of Philibert Rivière, Mme Philibert Rivière and Mlle Caroline Rivière (w 22–4, 1806; all Paris, Louvre) and a portrait of Napoleon I on the Imperial Throne (w 27, 1806; Paris, Mus. Armée). An additional incentive for him to remain in Paris was his engagement in June 1806 to Julie Forestier (b 1789), a painter and musician.

2. Rome, 1806–10.

En route to Rome, Ingres stayed briefly with Lorenzo Bartolini’s family in Florence, where he received letters with news of the adverse criticism his paintings had received at the Salon. After his arrival in Rome in October 1806, he discovered that even David had found his Napoleon ‘unintelligible’. Stunned, Ingres realized that he could not leave Rome until he had proved himself to the Parisian art establishment. On 26 December 1806 he moved into the small pavilion of S Gaetano in the grounds of the Villa Medici (home of the Académie de France from 1803). It had a magnificent view of Rome and gave him the privacy he needed to work. A series of landscape drawings and small oil paintings records his response to the city (see 1960 exh. cat.).

In 1807 Ingres began two history paintings. Pen-and-ink sketches (Montauban, Mus. Ingres, 867.2302, 2303) show the evolution of the Venus Anadyomene(w 257, completed 1848; Chantilly, Mus. Condé), which was inspired by Botticelli’s Birth of Venus (Florence, Uffizi). In a letter (Feb 1806) he stated his intention of painting a half life-size Antiochus and Stratonice, later (29 May) mentioning that he was going to invite Lucien Bonaparte to his studio to see it as soon as it was finished, although it was not until 1808 that the meeting actually took place (portrait drawing of Lucien Bonaparte, n 45; New York, priv. col.). The relationship between the wealthy patron and the ambitious young artist soured, however, when Bonaparte requested Ingres’s services not as a history painter but as a copyist. Ingres executed few portraits during these early years in Rome. He continued to work on the Antiochus and Stratonice(w 232; Chantilly, Mus. Condé) for the next 30 years, until he finished it for Ferdinand-Philippe, Duc d’Orléans, in 1840; the Venus remained unfinished until 1848. These works set a characteristic pattern of procrastination in a search for perfection.

In 1808 Ingres prepared three compositions, all focusing on his expertise with the nude figure, for the annual envoi to the Ecole in Paris. The first, now known as the Valpinçon Bather (w 53, 1808; Paris, Louvre), is a female bather seen from behind and is derived from the study of a Half-length Bather (w 45, 1807; Bayonne, Mus. Bonnat); both of these seem inspired by the nudes of Flaxman and Bronzino and reveal for the first time the cool sensuality that became characteristic of Ingres’s vision. The second envoi was Oedipus and the Sphinx (w60, 1808; Paris, Louvre). A third painting, Reclining Woman (later called the ‘Sleeper of Naples’, w 54, 1808; lost in 1815), was listed in the Villa Medici catalogue of 1808 but was not sent to Paris, being bought by Joachim Murat, King of Naples. The criticism of the paintings for their unorthodox stylizations and departure from academic propriety left Ingres puzzled and angry at the lack of appreciation for his talents.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Joseph-Antoine Moltedo, oil on canvas, 752×581 mm, c. 1810 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, H. O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, 1929, Accession ID: 29.100.23); image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art

During his last two years at the Villa Medici, Ingres continued to establish potentially useful connections. Among fellow winners of the Prix de Rome, for instance, was Jacques-Edouard Gatteaux with whom he formed a lifelong friendship and through whom he was introduced to Charles Marcotte d’Argenteuil (1787–1864). The resultant portrait (w 69, 1809; Washington, DC, N.G.A.) clearly reveals what a congenial spirit Ingres found his sitter to be. Commissions from several other French government officials followed (see fig.), and Ingres’s income in Rome was assured.

3. Italy, 1811–15.

Encouraged by the steadiness of commissions in Rome, in November 1810 Ingres took an apartment at 40 Via Gregoriana at the end of his tenure at the Villa Medici. Living near by was Granet, of whom there are several portrait drawings (e.g. n 86, 1812; Aix-en-Provence, Mus. Granet), and the two painters had free government studios in the church of S Trinità dei Monti. Ingres was still completing his last envoi, the large-scale Jupiter and Thetis (w 72, 1811; Aix-en-Provence, Mus. Granet), a subject he had first considered in 1806. He envisioned a ‘divine painting’ that would convey the full beauty of the god-like forms and expressions. His Jupiter is a masterly image of male power; the sensuous curves and pliant posture of Thetis express eloquently the sensual intimacy between the two immortals. To Ingres’s distress, the painting was severely criticized: in his attempt to reconcile prevailing taste and the classical spirit, he failed to see how unorthodox his painting was in combining an intimate love theme with a massive scale and in introducing wildly manneristic exaggerations of contour and proportion.

For the next two years Ingres devoted himself to three monumental decorative paintings: Romulus Victorious over Acron (w 82, 1812; Paris, Ecole N. Sup. B.-A.) and the Dream of Ossian (w 87, 1813; Montauban, Mus. Ingres), both for the Palazzo di Monte Cavallo, and Virgil Reading from the ‘Aeneid’ before Augustus and Livia (w 83, 1812; Toulouse, Mus. Augustins) for the residence of General François de Miollis (1759–1828), the French lieutenant-governor who oversaw the renovation of Monte Cavallo (the pontifical palace on the Quirinal was being made into the residence of the King of Rome). The programme was an ambitious mixture of painting and sculpture in the Neo-classical style: its theme was the parallel between Roman and Napoleonic history. Antonio Canova oversaw the selection of artists, which included the Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen. This commission marked the acceptance of Ingres as a history painter. Romulus Victorious over Acron was one of three antique battle scenes for the salon of the Empress. Ingres followed Plutarch’s Life of Romulus closely, striving for archaeological correctness. The archaisms of the work’s stylized composition and the flat colouring were intended to imitate an antique low relief. The Dream of Ossian, begun in 1812 in collaboration with Jose Alvarez y Priego, was intended as an oval ceiling decoration for the Emperor’s bedroom. (When Ingres bought it back in the 1830s he began to rework it into a rectangular format; it was in his studio with its perimeters unfinished at his death.) Virgil Reading from the ‘Aeneid’ before Augustus and Livia, a night scene painted for General Miollis’s bedroom in the Villa Aldobrandini, is perfectly attuned to the traditional Neo-classical approach to subject-matter: action is frozen, emotion is held in check, gestures tell all. (It too was repurchased, reworked and left unfinished: see below.)

The large commissions were completed by May 1813. Having firmly established his reputation in Rome, Ingres looked to secure a place in Paris. He set to work on an ambitious plan for the Salon of 1814, at which he hoped to outshine the popular historical genre painters. In a letter of July 1813 he mentioned plans to send two grands tableaux, two portraits, a painting of the Interior of the Sistine Chapel (w 91, 1814; Washington, DC, N.G.A.), which had been commissioned in 1812 by Marcotte, and a small painting of Raphael and La Fornarina (w 86, 1813; untraced). Neither of the grands tableaux was completed: Tu Marcellus eris (w 128; Brussels, Musées Royaux A. & Hist.) is a fragment of the three central figures from a revised Virgil Reading cut down (at a later date) from the composition Ingres intended to send to this Salon; it is uncertain what the second tableau was to have been. The Interior of the Sistine Chapel was finished in summer 1814 and was sent to the Salon accompanied only by another historical genre piece, Don Pedro of Toledo Kissing the Sword of Henry IV (w101, exh. Salon 1814; untraced). It was hardly the tour de force that Ingres intended. Raphael and La Fornarina reached Paris just days before the Salon closed.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Portrait of Madame Ingres, née Madeleine Chapelle, graphite on off-white wove paper, sheet: 193×144 mm, 1814 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, in honour of Philippe de Montebello, 2004, Accession ID: 2004.475.2); image © Metropolitan Museum of Art

While preparing for the Salon, on 4 December 1813 Ingres married Madeleine Chapelle (1782–1849), beginning 36 years of personal security and happiness. A series of portraits shows his contentment within this new family circle (n 98–111; see fig.). Another diversion from preparations for the Salon was a summons to Naples, where he spent February to May 1814, painting the Grande Odalisque (w 93, 1814; Paris, Louvre) as a pendant to the ‘Sleeper of Naples’. A full-length oil portrait of Caroline Murat, Queen of Naples (w 90, 1814) and the Sleeper were lost from the palace in May 1815 with the fall of the Murat régime, but a series of portrait drawings of the family remains (n 116–21). He also painted two smaller Troubadour style love scenes for Caroline Murat—the The Betrothal of Raphael and the Niece of Cardinal Bibbiena (w 85, 1813; Baltimore, MD, Walters A.G.; see fig.), which Ingres boasted he completed in just 20 days, and the first version of Paolo and Francesca (w 100, c.1814; Chantilly, Mus. Condé).

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Grande Odalisque, oil on canvas, 0.91×1.62 m, 1814 (Paris, Musée du Louvre); photo credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY

4. Rome, 1815–20.

As the withdrawal of the Napoleonic forces from Italy cut off avenues of financial support, Ingres was forced to turn to drawing portraits of tourists and later a host of new officials of the French Restoration government (see fig.). Eventually these connections led to new historical commissions, but in the meanwhile he was distressed by having to waste time on such portraits. In contrast to these, many of the portrait drawings Ingres did of friends are exquisite in the loving detail he lavished on them. One of the most intimate, and a perfect example of the type, is his portrait of the Guillon-Lethière Family(n 140, 1815). In the winter of 1816–17 Ingres received a commission from the Alba family for three small paintings with subjects taken from Spanish history. For Philip V and the Marshal of Berwick (w 120, 1818; Madrid, Pal. Liria, Col. Casa de Alba), a scene from 18th-century Alba family history, Ingres raided the Gobelins tapestry series the Story of the King for stylistic prototypes. The figures, diminutive in comparison with his other work, are subordinated to the props of the scene, dressed in period costumes, each playing their assigned role. The subject—the Spanish king rewarding a loyal subject—is purely anecdotal, and Ingres had little personal commitment to it. The subject of the second painting moved Ingres from disinterest to disgust. The Duque de Alba at Ste Gudule, Brussels (w 102, 1816–17; Montauban, Mus. Ingres) had as its ‘hero’ the man who led the Catholic campaign in the Low Countries against the Protestant Reformation and who was responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people. At first Ingres had in mind a horizontal composition with the protagonist receiving honours from the archbishop. Infra-red photographs reveal that the original format of the canvas was identical with that of a drawing (d216; ex-Paul Rosenberg & Co., New York) done as a model. Then he switched to a vertical format in order to put as much distance as possible between the viewer and the Duque, the latter becoming almost a speck on the horizon in a long view down the nave of Ste Gudule. Even that did not ease his scruples, and in 1819 Ingres abandoned the canvas. The third painting never reached the drawing phase.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Kaunitz Sisters (Leopoldine, Caroline, and Ferdinandine), graphite, 11-7/8 x 8-3/4 in. (30.1 x 22.2 cm), 1818 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, in honor of Philippe de Montebello, 1998, Accession ID:1998.21)

Ingres made concerted efforts to build up connections with the new French Restoration circles in Rome. Commissions were not only smaller but less frequent than in the glorious days of the Empire. It may be fortuitous, or it may reflect a political astuteness for which Ingres does not often receive credit, that the paintings he sent to the first Restoration Salon (1814) were particularly appropriate to a post-Napoleon environment: the Sistine Chapel (w91) and Don Pedro of Toledo (w 101). He lost no time in ingratiating himself with the new leadership. He enjoyed the friendship of three diplomatic secretaries, Gabriel de Fontenay (1784–1855), Artaud de Montor and Augustin Jordan (1773–1849), and profited from their acquaintance in many ways. He drew their portraits, made gifts of drawings of his latest genre subjects, and even made a rare venture into printmaking, transforming the portrait of the ambassador Mgr de Pressigny (n 170; priv. col.) into an etching, which he hand-tinted. Mgr de Pressigny (1745–1823) was soon replaced by Pierre-Louis-Casimir, Comte (later Duc) de Blacas, a man of independent fortune, powerfully connected to the inner circle of government. Ingres’s relationship with this patron yielded two exquisite Bourbon cabinet pictures for Blacas’s personal collection, Henry IV Playing with his Children (w 113, 1817; Paris, Petit Pal.), a classic of the Restoration Troubadour style that shows Henry IV down on his knees in a cosy domestic scene, and its pendant, the Death of Leonardo da Vinci (w 118, 1818; Paris, Petit Pal.), which depicts the artist dying in the arms of Francis I.

In July 1816 Charles Thévenin (1764–1838), the new director of the Académie de France, began successfully to lobby the Direction des Beaux-Arts in Paris on Ingres’s behalf. In January 1817 Blacas chose Ingres as one of the artists for the renovation and the decoration of Trinità dei Monti, the focus of the French colony in Rome. Christ Giving the Keys to St Peter (w 132; Montauban, Mus. Ingres) was completed in March 1818 for a fee of 3000 francs. Ingres certainly knew the versions of the subject by Raphael (tapestry cartoon, 1515; London, V&A) and Poussin (Ordination, 1639–40; Belvoir Castle, Leics), but while they included all twelve Apostles, Ingres reduced the number to six, while retaining the symbolic position of Judas, who stands apart from the others. (Characteristically, he retouched the painting in the 1840s when the Dames du Sacré-Coeur exchanged it with the French government for a copy.) The Comte de Blacas acted as an intermediary in the acquisition by Louis XVIII of Roger Freeing Angelica (w 124, 1819; Paris, Louvre), Ingres’s first sale to the State and also the first work by him to enter a public collection (by 1824 it had been moved to the Musée du Luxembourg, Paris). With his confidence as a history painter re-established by these commissions, Ingres sent Roger Freeing Angelica to the Salon of 1819 with the Grande Odalisque. James-Alexandre, Comte de Pourtalès-Gorgier, acquired the latter from the Salon, as he had Raphael and La Fornarina in 1814, but critics and public alike found the arbitrariness of the odalisque’s anatomical structure shocking and found so little to interest them in the Angelicaas to misidentify the scene as representing Perseus and Andromeda. Ingres felt that the three public exhibitions of his work in 1806, 1814 and 1819 had ridiculed him in Paris, and he determined to stay in Italy.

5. Florence, 1820–24.

In August 1820 Ingres moved to Florence, where he hoped to renew contact with Bartolini and to explore the artistic and architectural wealth of the city. Bartolini had become a famous sculptor, and the friendship did not survive. Immediately after his installation at Bartolini’s home, Ingres finished a variant of the Sistine Chapel (w 131, 1820; Paris, Louvre). He made a copy of Titian’s Venus of Urbino (w 149, 1822; Baltimore, MD, Walters A.G.) for Bartolini to use as a model for his Recumbent Venus (1822; Montpellier, Mus. Fabre) and did a portrait of Bartolini (w 142, 1820; Paris, Louvre). He also copied a painting in the Uffizi that he believed to be a self-portrait by Raphael (w 163; Montauban, Mus. Ingres), drew the churches of Florence and the gardens and visited Lucca, Siena and Pisa. In 1821 Ingres did two portrait commissions, Count Nicolas Dmtrievitch de Gouriev (w148; St Petersburg, Hermitage) and Mlle Jeanne Gonin (w 147; Cincinnati, OH, Taft Mus.). The Gonin family became lifelong friends, their household being a model of Ingres’s ideal world: a patriarchal merchant husband, a devoted wife, clever children and a wide circle of worthy friends and relatives.

One of the commissions Ingres had ‘in progress’ when he arrived from Rome was from the Comte de Pastoret (1791–1859) for a small history painting of the Entry into Paris of the Dauphin, the Future Charles V (w 146, 1821; Hartford, CT, Wadsworth Atheneum) derived from that of 1358 by Jean Froissart. The figure welcoming the Dauphin was one of Pastoret’s relatives. The medieval prototypes Ingres sought in developing the painting are to be found in the vignettes from the Grandes Chroniques de France (Paris, Bib. N.,, which Ingres traced from Bernard de Montfaucon’s Les Monumens de la monarchie française(Paris, 1729–33, iii, pl. XXII and XXXIX). He also borrowed from Jean Fouquet’s Reception of the Emperor Charles IV (Grandes Chroniques, fol. 419) and Franz Pforr’s Entry of Rudolf I of Habsburg into Basle in 1273 (1808–9/10; Frankfurt am Main, Städel. Kstinst). Though finished in 1821 and listed in the Salon catalogue for 1822, the Entry into Paris was not shown until two years later, when it received critical acclaim.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Jacques-Louis Leblanc (1774–1846), oil on canvas, 47 5/8 x 37 5/8 in. (121 x 95.6 cm), 1823 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Catharine Lorillard Wolfe Collection, Wolfe Fund, 1918, Accession ID:19.77.1); photo © The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Shortly after his arrival in Florence, Ingres received word from Thévenin of a government commission for a religious painting on a grand scale. The official request was for a painting for the choir of Montauban Cathedral; Ingres’s response was a plan for a confrontation at the Salon of 1822. The mayor had asked for a work that would show the King placing the royal family of France under the protection of the Virgin at the time of her Assumption. At first Ingres protested that these were two distinct subjects; later he realized the concept was perfect for the Raphaelesque solution he found in the Vow of Louis XIII (w 155, 1824). His representation of the Virgin and Child is a reversal of the Madonna of Foligno (1511–12; Rome, Pin. Vaticana) by Raphael. His image of Louis XIII is from a painting of the same name by Philippe de Champaigne (1637–8; Caen, Mus. B.-A.). Ingres had these borrowings firmly in place with an oil sketch by 1822 (w 156; Montauban, Mus. Ingres), but he failed to deliver the painting for two more years because once again his grandiose intentions inhibited his ability to realize the dream. In late 1821 Ingres mentioned that he expected to cover the cost of personally bringing his Vow to Paris by finishing a painting begun in 1807, the Venus Anadyomene. By January 1822 he had found a buyer for the work, Jacques-Louis Leblanc (1774–1846), a man of patience who advanced funds against the intended purchase and yet never questioned that the Vow would take precedence over his commission. (In 1823 Ingres painted portraits of Jacques-Louis Leblanc and Mme Jacques-Louis Lebland.) By December 1823 the Vow had progressed to the point where Ingres expected to bring it to Paris by the spring. However, it was not until November 1824 that he arrived.

6. Paris, 1824–34.

The Vow of Louis XIII appeared at the Salon on 12 November 1824. Its favourable reception was essentially a tribute to the long-absent artist. Also, the work was sufficiently orthodox in its presentation of traditional values to stand against such Romantic incursions as Delacroix’s Massacres at Chios (1824; Paris, Louvre). In early 1825 Ingres received the Cross of the Légion d’honneur, was invited to attend the coronation of Charles X and was elected to the Académie des Beaux-Arts. By July Ingres was installed in a two-room studio with his prints, books, earlier canvases and drawings to inspire, and distract, him. In November 1825 he opened a studio for students, foremost among whom were Eugène-Ammanuel Amaury-Duval, Paul Chenavard, Armand Cambon (1819–85), Raymond Balze (1818–1909) and Paul Balze (1815–84), Auguste Flandrin and Hippolyte Flandrin, Henri Lehmann, Franz Adolph von Stürler (1802–81) and Sébastien Cornu. One of the first fruits of his new place as champion of the classical tradition was a commission from the Bishop of Autun for a monumental religious subject, the Martyrdom of St Symphorian (w 212, 1827–34; Autun Cathedral). Shortly afterwards he received the commission for the Apotheosis of Homer (w168, 1827–33; Paris, Louvre) for the ceiling of one of the nine rooms dedicated to Egyptian and Etruscan antiquities in the Musée Charles X (now Musée du Louvre) to be inaugurated in 1827. The transport of the Vow of Louis XIII to Montauban was delayed by Ingres’s efforts to keep the work in Paris at one of the more prestigious churches. Abandoning that plan, he kept it for several months so that the engraver Luigi Calamatta could make a drawing of it. The painting was unveiled in the city hall in Montauban on 12 November 1826, the only time Ingres ever returned to his birthplace. On his way back to Paris, he stopped in Autun, where he made studies of the old Roman wall for the St Symphorian: an oil sketch (w 202, 1827; New York, priv. col.) was completed by February, by which time a watercolour study of Homer (d 178, Lille, Mus. B.-A.) was also well advanced.

During this ten-year period in Paris Ingres carefully manipulated his connections with French society: portrait drawings from this time onwards were exclusively for friendship and/or favour (the two were often linked) and never directly for money. His oil portraits of Mme Marcotte de Sainte Marie (w166, 1826; Paris, Louvre) and Comte Amédée-David de Pastoret (w 167, 1826; Chicago, IL, A. Inst.) were sent to the Salon of 1827. A portrait of Charles X (w 206, 1829; Bayonne, Mus. Bonnat) was followed by paintings that mark the passage from the Restoration to the bourgeois government of the July Monarchy (1830): both the founder and director of the Journal des Débats (Louis-François Bertin, w208, 1832; Paris, Louvre) and Louis-Philippe’s prime minister (Comte Louis-Mathieu Molé, w 225, 1834; priv. col.) symbolized the new age. Painfully aware that the work he had produced during the previous two decades was virtually unknown in France, Ingres was determined to launch prints of his work soon after his arrival in Paris. James Pradier bought engraving rights to Virgil Reading the ‘Aeneid’and Raphael and La Fornarina in February 1825; Pierre Sudre (1783–1866) bought lithographic rights for the Grande Odalisque in 1826; Théodore Richomme (1785–1849) had engraving rights to Henry IV Playing with his Children and Charles-François Sellier to the Death of Leonardo. These contracts ended financial need, yet Ingres’s fussing over the details of how these prints were done, coupled with obsessive reworking of earlier compositions in replicas and revisions from 1828 to 1833, resulted in a marked decline in his artistic output.

Jean-Augustue-Dominique Ingres: Louis-François Bertin, oil on canvas, 1.16×0.95 m, 1832 (Paris, Musée du Louvre); photo credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY

The deadline for the Louvre commission, the Apotheosis of Homer, was linked to the opening of the 1827 Salon. While Ingres was still laying in preliminary contours on the canvas, the other artists agreed they could be ready in time. Though in place when the Salon opened, the painting was finished only in grisaille; Ingres eventually completed it for the opening of the Salon of 1833. He was now ready to take up again the Martyrdom of St Symphorian, depicting the moment at which the young Christian is led out of the city gate to be beheaded. Although the format had been resolved by February 1827, and Ingres listed it in the Salon catalogue of that year, it was not shown until the Salon of 1834; its discordances of space, perspective, emotion and colour were deemed contrary to academic practice, and the painting was damned as an unsuccessful marriage of Raphael and Michelangelo. Profoundly discouraged, Ingres decided to abandon the Paris art scene. He requested, and received on 5 July 1834, the directorship of the Académie de France in Rome. His Paris studio was abruptly closed. He swore that he would neither submit his works to public exhibition nor undertake government commissions ever again; henceforth he would do only small paintings for friends.

7. Rome, 1835–41.

Ingres replaced Horace Vernet as director at the Villa Medici. He and his wife soon gathered round them an intimate circle of young artists, including the composer Ambroise Thomas (1811–96), the architect Victor Baltard, the painter Hippolyte Flandrin and the sculptor Pierre-Charles Simart. At first Ingres buried himself in administrative details. In January 1836 his direct superior Adolphe Thiers asked him to return to Paris to work on paintings for the church of La Madeleine. Ingres politely declined; but he did have a new project in mind, the Odalisque with Slave (w 228, Cambridge, MA, Fogg), which he completed in 1839, part token of his friendship with Marcotte, and part repayment for Marcotte’s advance in 1825 to Calamatta for engraving the Vow. Ingres also had another commitment. In 1834 Ferdinand-Philippe, Duc d’Orléans, eldest son of Louis-Philippe and a prominent Parisian art collector, had commissioned an Antiochus and Stratonice as an unlikely pendant to Paul Delaroche’s Death of the Duc de Guise (1834; Chantilly, Mus. Condé). Ingres had begun work on this subject in 1807 and had reconsidered it several times in the 1820s.

Despite a period of debilitating illness, Ingres continued to work as much as possible. He resumed painting in September 1837, and he was still involved with the Antiochus in January 1839; pressure for completion was being applied by Pradier, who had been promised reproduction rights. It was August 1840 before the painting was sent back to Paris. By then the simple cast of three in a narrow rectangular format had developed into a theatrical cast of characters in a room, the architecture of which was based on designs by Victor Baltard and mostly executed by the Balze brothers. The impressive array of auxiliary characters and the splendour of the room reflect Ingres’s attempt to match the juste-milieu style of Delaroche. The Musée Ingres, Montauban, has more than 100 sheets containing over 300 drawings showing his search for the right balance of detail; there are over 40, for instance, for the position of the arm of Antiochus. Gatteaux delivered the painting to the Duc d’Orléans, who wrote personally to thank Ingres and included payment of 18,000 francs, nearly double the agreed price. The Duc authorized a showing of the completed Antiochus and Stratonice each day in the most beautiful Salon of the Tuileries. Never had a work by Ingres excited such admiration.

8. Paris, 1841–55.

In May 1841 Ingres returned to Paris, where he was received with acclaim following the favourable reception of the Antiochus and Stratonice. In November that year he began a portrait of Ferdinand-Philippe, Duc d’Orléans (w 239; Louveciennes, priv. col.), which was delivered to the Palais-Royal by May 1842. At the request of Queen Marie-Amélie (1782–1866), Louis-Philippe commissioned a religious painting for the chapel of the château at Bezy (Christ among the Doctors, w 302, completed 1862; Montauban, Mus. Ingres), and in June 1842 he purchased Cherubini with the Muse of Lyric Poetry (w236, 1842; Paris, Louvre) for the State collection.

Ingres declined to reopen his studio on his return to Paris as he was assured of a secure income not only from such commissions as the Golden Age but also from society portraits. At the end of June 1842 he was doing an oil sketch (w 238, Paris, priv. col.) for the portrait of the Comtesse d’Haussonville (w 248, completed 1845; New York, Frick) and was about to have his first sitting with the Baronne James de Rothschild (1805–86). Despite his many complaints about the inconvenience such portraits caused, he still gave them the same attention as his history paintings. With the accidental death of the Duc d’Orléans in July 1842, Ingres lost a patron who had shown him much respect and understanding. Shortly afterwards Louis-Philippe asked for a copy of his son’s portrait (w 242, 1843; Versailles, Château), and within a year five more copies of the portrait, in varied formats, were requested. The Queen erected a memorial chapel dedicated to St Ferdinand at Dreux and commissioned designs for its stained-glass windows from Ingres. He completed his cartoons (in colour) for the 25 windows with incredible speed in August and September 1842 (Camesasca, 1971, no. 135a–q; Paris, Louvre). In November 1843 he received a request for stained-glass window designs for the royal chapel of St Louis at Dreux, which held the tombs of the Orléans family (Camesasca, 1971, no. 136a–h; Paris, Louvre), and the designs were completed by June 1844.

Meanwhile in 1843 Ingres had begun work on the largest commission of his career. The Duc de Luynes wanted pendant murals of the Golden Age and the Iron Age (unfinished; each mural 4.8×6.6 m) as the principal decorations of the Salon de Minerva, a large room on the second floor of the family château at Dampierre. The theme of the Golden Age was intended to compare 19th-century Paris with the ideal world at the beginning of time. The literary and artistic sources ranged from Ovid and Hesiod to Mantegna, Raphael, Agostino Carracci, Poussin, Watteau and Anton Raphael Mengs, and Ingres found further inspiration in Milton’s Paradise Lost. The project was to occupy him for several years. When Gatteaux asked to see the work in progress in the summer of 1844 Ingres refused, as not even the Duc de Luynes had been admitted to the gallery.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Princesse de Broglie, oil on canvas, 47 3/4 x 35 3/4 in. (121.3 x 90.8 cm), 1851–1853 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Robert Lehman Collection, 1975, Accession ID:1975.1.186); photo © The Metropolitan Museum of Art

In June 1845 Ingres brought the portrait of the Comtesse d’Haussonvilleto a remarkable conclusion. It attracted virtually all Parisian high society to his studio, including the sitter’s brother, the Prince de Broglie (1785–1870), who immediately commissioned a portrait of his wife the Princesse de Broglie (w 272, 1853; New York, Met.). About this time Ingres did cameo portrait pendants in grisaille of the Queen and her daughter-in-law, the Duchesse d’Orléans (Camesasca, nos 141–2; Paris, Mus. A. Déc.). By the summer of 1845 the Golden Age was progressing steadily, and both Gatteaux and Marcotte were invited to see it in late October. By June 1847 Christ among the Doctors was well advanced, and Ingres had again taken up the Venus Anadyomene (begun 1807), now for Etienne Delessert (1735–1816). In October 1847 Henri-Eugène-Philippe-Louis, Duc d’Aumale (Louis-Philippe’s fifth son), offered Ingres a commission for cartoons for the stained-glass windows of a chapel he wanted to restore in his château at Chantilly. The project was cut short by the Revolution of February 1848; Ingres also lost his client for Christ among the Doctors, when Louis-Philippe was deposed and his art collection dispersed.

In the opening months of 1848 social life in Paris halted, and Ingres found the solitude he needed to finish the Venus Anadyomene and the portrait of Baronne James de Rothschild (w 260, priv. col.). Delessert dared to complain of irregularities in the Venus’s proportions, and the work was sold in an instant to Frédéric Reiset (1815–91). Ingres excused himself from work on the murals at Dampierre that summer, claiming that the political climate made work impossible. In October he accepted an invitation to be on the Commission des Beaux-Arts, where, remembering his own painful entry into the artistic establishment, he abandoned his conservatism and argued for an open Salon. He was named vice-president of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts for 1849.

When his wife Madeleine died on 27 July 1849, Ingres seems to have felt that his own life had come to an end also. The families of his friends and students placed him under attentive care, and portrait drawings of this supportive circle show the artist being nurtured back into life (n 414–21). One of his disciples, Albert Magimel (1799–1877), suggested that Ingres should prepare his collected works for publication in outline format (Magimel, 1851). Ostensibly a simple exercise in line reproduction based on tracings of his compositions from his portfolios, the project gave Ingres new life. By June 1851 he had returned to portrait painting, blocking in the portrait of the Princesse de Broglie and working on the first of two portraits of Mme Moitessier (w 266, 1851; Washington, DC, N.G.A.). As soon as Ingres finished the view of Mme Moitessier standing, he resumed work on a portrait of her seated (w 280, completed 1856; London, N.G.; see fig.), which he had begun in 1844 as a double portrait of her and her daughter. At this time Ingres believed that his career was nearly at an end. He had abandoned the Dampierre commission in 1850, much to the disappointment of the Duc de Luynes. In July 1851 he donated his art collection to the museum at Montauban, and in October he resigned from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. However, the beginning of the Second Empire and his marriage on 15 April 1852 to Delphine Ramel (1808–87; portrait drawing, n427; Bayonne, Mus. Bonnat) rejuvenated him. Close friends realized how painful the loss of his first wife had been and how necessary a second wife was. The only disadvantage of the new marriage was the ‘swarm of portraits’ required for his extended family (n 428–32, 435–8, 441–2, 448).

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Mme Moitessier, oil on canvas, 1.20×0.92 m, completed 1856 (London, National Gallery); Photo credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY

In 1851 Guisard, the Directeur des Beaux-Arts, had asked Ingres to paint a subject of his choice for the State. The only stipulation was that Ingres submit a drawing for the approval of the government. Ingres rejected the offer, proposing instead to finish two works already under way in his studio. Guisard agreed, and paintings of the Virgin with the Host (w 276) and Joan of Arc (w 273; both Paris, Louvre) were delivered in 1854. Both works were repetitions of subjects that he had executed in the 1840s: a painting of the former had been commissioned by the future Tsar Alexander II (w 234, 1841; Moscow, Pushkin Mus. F.A.); the latter is based on his drawing (1844; Paris, Louvre) engraved in the second edition of Mannechet’s Le Plutarque français: Vies des hommes et femmes illustrés de la France (Paris, 1844–7). An infra-red examination of the Virgin with the Host reveals that it began as a rectangular composition and was changed into a circular one, with the paired columns becoming two angels and curtains. In Ingres’s painting of Joan of Arc the heroine is shown surrounded by her pages and followers, among them Ingres, witnessing the coronation of King Charles VII in Reims Cathedral.

The Apotheosis of Napoleon (w 270, 1853; destr.) was one of only two exceptions to the pledge Ingres had made in 1834 never again to work on a monumental scale. In March 1853 he accepted a commission from the government of Napoleon III for a ceiling painting for the Salon Napoléon in the Hôtel de Ville in Paris. The work had to be completed by the end of the same year. It was delivered on time, but was destroyed in the fires of the Commune of 1871: an oil study (w 271; Paris, Carnavalet) remains of the composition together with several drawn versions (e.g. Paris, Louvre, rf 3608). It is also known through photographs taken at the Exposition Universelle (Paris, 1855), where all Ingres’s important works were hung in a separate gallery. Paranoid as ever, he believed that he had been humiliated by the jury’s decision to award gold medals to other artists in addition to himself, including one to Delacroix, ‘the apostle of the ugly’. His anger was modified only slightly by being named Grand Officer of the Légion d’honneur, but he vowed again to abandon the public arena.

9. Paris, 1856–67.

From 1856 Ingres’s work was directed primarily towards a private audience. At his summer residence at Meung-sur-Loire he worked on two drawings: a watercolour of the Birth of the Muses (d 28, 1856; Paris, Louvre), painted in imitation of a fresco to ornament the cella of a little Greek temple for Prince Napoléon-Jérôme Bonaparte; and a drawing of Homer Deified (d 180; Paris, Louvre, rf5273), ‘reseen and redrawn’ and meant to be the model for an engraving after his 1827 ceiling painting by Calamatta. Although he expected to finish it by the end of the summer, it was in progress for nine more years, when Ingres had it photographed by Charles Marville and sent signed copies of it in a limited edition to his friends. He also painted a number of late versions in oil of his early subjects for private clients. For example, the Turkish Bath (w 312, completed 1863; Paris, Louvre) is an elaboration of his many earlier bather compositions. The canvas had been in the studio from the early 1850s, when Prince Anatole Demidov was listed as the client; by the time he considered it to be finished in 1859, however, it was claimed by Prince Napoléon-Jérôme. Much to Ingres’s dismay, the painting was returned as Princesse Clotilde found it unsuitable for a family residence. Frédéric Reiset, Director of the Louvre and a friend of both Ingres and the Prince, averted disaster by negotiating an exchange for Ingres’s Self-portraitof 1806. A photograph (see 1983–4 exh. cat., p. 125) records the Turkish Bath as it was then, nearly square in format. Once back in the studio it met the fate common to returned works. In his reworking Ingres increased the number of figures to 23 and gave the composition its circular format. The final painting was sold in 1863 to Khalil-Bey, the Turkish ambassador to France.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Turkish Bath, oil on canvas affixed to panel, diam. 1.08 m, 1863 (Paris, Musée du Louvre); Photo credit: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY

Ingres created a private gallery of his work for his wife. The collection (complete list in 1983–4 exh. cat., p. 252) included the Antiochus and Stratonice (w 322; Montpellier, Mus. Fabre), which he painted in watercolour and oil over a drawing on tracing paper (affixed to canvas in 1866), a technique that was also used in the Martyrdom of St Symphorian (w 319, 1865; Philadelphia, PA, Mus. A.). He gave away some of his works, again all reductions or variants of earlier subjects, as tokens of his friendship: Mme Marcotte (1798–1862) received a Virgin with the Host with SS Helen and Louis (w268; London, priv. col.); Théophile Gautier received a reworked study for the Apotheosis of Homer, Three Greek Tragedians, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripedes (w 324; Angers, Mus. B.-A.). In 1861 several of Ingres’s friends organized an exhibition of about 100 of his historical and portrait drawings in the Salon des Arts Unis, Paris. It was the first time Ingres had consented to let his drawings be shown, as he had previously felt that their popular appeal would distract from his paintings.

Christ among the Doctors was finished in 1862, after Ingres was released from his original contract of the 1840s and given the right to dispose of it as he pleased. A large exhibition of his work, organized by Armand Cambon, opened in Montauban on 4 May 1862; on 25 May Ingres became the first artist since Joseph-Marie Vien to be named Senator. His last will and testament was signed on 28 August 1866. In it he bequeathed to the city of Montauban his art collection (paintings, prints, drawings, plaster casts, antique fragments, terracottas) and illustrated art books, in addition to the contents of his studio (including the large paintings of Christ among the Doctors and the Dream of Ossian) and over 4000 of his study drawings. He left the huge canvas of Virgil Reading the ‘Aeneid’, which had been in his Paris studio for reworking since the 1840s, to the Musée des Augustins, Toulouse. He made provision for his wife’s financial security after his death by working closely with his dealer, Etienne-François Haro, to assemble a body of work from his studio for sale. Haro bought 31 oil studies for the history paintings and assorted drawn copies and studies for 50,000 francs. On 6–7 May 1867 the remaining contents of Ingres’s studio were sold.

II. Working methods and technique.

Marjorie B. Cohn (intro. to 1983–4 exh. cat.) divided Ingres’s working method into the generative phase (in which the original idea was conceived) and the extended and obsessive executive phase. The latter included not only the process of realizing the painting, but was extended by Ingres to include a lifetime of reworking favourite compositions in preparation for reproductive prints, in finished drawings and paintings for friends and clients, and in reductions to partial compositions, which were sent into the world, often decades after the original product, as works in their own right. These habits reflected Ingres’s profound esteem for repetition as a means of understanding. He was very much governed by traditional Ecole des Beaux-Arts practices. He began with quick pen-and-ink sketches of a general idea and then explored all possible artistic prototypes for the composition. He worked next in a combination of life studies from the model for individual figures and detailed studies of archaeological furnishings from his library of engraved models after antiquity and the Renaissance. He suited his style to the subject, imitating 15th-century primitive oil painting for Troubadour subjects, emulating fresco technique in oil for antique battle scenes, and used every conceivable drawing material on a wide variety of papers—charcoal for light and shadow studies, pen with ink or a sharp graphite for contour drawings (see fig.). He was especially partial to working on a translucent tracing paper that aided his endless manipulations of the composition. Some of his drawings are built up of layers of paper types over one another as revision followed revision; other drawings were spontaneously completed in a few perfect contours.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: Nicolo Paganini (1784-1840), counterproof strengthened with graphite and white chalk on paper, 9 7/16 x 7 5/16 in. (24 x 18.5 cm) (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of Grace Rainey Rogers, 1943, Accession ID: 43.85.10)

photo © The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Major history paintings were preceded by relatively finished drawings of the whole composition, by oil sketches of the whole and by detailed studies in oil of the individual figures. When faced with a new commission, Ingres assembled all possible relevant historical documentation, then slowly laboured to dominate the model with his own vision by rebuilding it from the ground up with studies from life. A good example of this approach is the Golden Age mural for the Duc de Luynes. In 1843 Ingres started on the commission, alternately working at the château at Dampierre (usually from June to October) and at the studio in Paris (November to June). He worked on the subject for several years (1843–8), especially in the quiet evening hours, making over 500 drawings. During the first year at Dampierre he had a model made of the major figures so that he could study the effects of light and shadow. As he was unable to work from the live model in the gallery, detailed drawings for the major figures were made in Paris. In such later paintings as Antiochus and Stratonice and Odalisque with Slave, which required elaborate interiors, Ingres began his studies from nature. He prepared the rough sketch on the canvas, and his students then worked on less important parts such as the architecture, mosaics, rugs and furniture, some of which might need repositioning if he decided to change the figures. Since the figures were completed by Ingres, he alone undertook to harmonize the ensemble with innumerable carefully applied layers of colour. His concern for the final touches extended to the last coats of varnish and the exact choice of frame.

A normal day consisted of work in the studio from nine to six, followed, preferably, by dinner and a quiet evening in preparation for the next day, but more often in Paris by the exigencies of social life. The time devoted to portraits was carefully scheduled and followed a set pattern. Ingres and the sitter met for an hour and a half in the morning, then broke for lunch. While the sitter relaxed, Ingres looked for mannerisms, gestures or opinions that could throw light on the sitter’s character. They returned to the studio for a two-and-a-half hour session. At four the sitting was over, the drawing finished. Patience was essential as, regardless of the status of the sitter, the finished portrait might be delivered up to seven years later, or not at all.

Ingres wrote of his working habits, ‘I force myself to press ahead by every sort of study, and each step further that I make in the understanding of nature makes me see that I know nothing. The more I reach toward perfection, the more I find myself … measuring … what I lack. I destroy more than I create’ (letter, 24 Dec 1822). Justifying his obsessive reworking, he also noted ‘if my works have a value and are deserving, it is because … I have taken them up twenty times over again, I have purified them with an extreme of research and sincerity’ (Delaborde, 1870, p. 100).

III. Character and personality.

Ingres was the staunchest, most conservative defender of the classical tradition, preaching an inflexible, if sometimes contradictory, doctrine of ideal beauty and the absolute supremacy of line and pure form over colour and emotion. He described himself as generally affable but with a ‘white hot’ temper if he felt himself wronged. His personality, like his art, was marked by a preference for the order of a familiar universe. He adjusted slowly to changes in daily habits and remained the worst sort of provincial traveller, comparing everything that was new to him unfavourably with the home equivalent.

According to Charles Blanc, Ingres’s friend and biographer, ‘In him genius is will…. Here was a man for whom invention was painful, but who bent his faults by a prodigious love of the beautiful’ (1870, pp. 92–3). In times of stress, Ingres was likely to react with a whole variety of physical symptoms, for example boils and atrocious headaches during the last few months of 1833, while he was working on the Apotheosis of Homer. There were times, however, when the pleasures of work were sweeter than ever before: ‘Every day I am shut away in my studio from morning to night. I am love struck by painting, I don’t possess it, it possesses me’ (letter, May 1827). He was not at all the 19th-century bohemian artist; he loved every bourgeois comfort and expected his wife to look after his domestic needs.

In a letter of 7 July 1862 to Hippolyte Fockedey (Naef, 1977–81, iii, p. 371) Victor Mettez described ‘le Père Ingres’ as ‘choleric, impatient, obstinate, good, naive, righteous, lazy … by moments eloquent and sublime … an incredible mélange’. This ‘mélange’ was echoed in an intimate sketch of Ingres by the composer Charles Gounod: ‘He had an enthusiasm which sometimes approached eloquence. He had the tenderness of a child and the indignations of an apostle. He was naive and sensitive. He was sincerely humble before the great masters, but fiercely proud of his own accomplishments’ (Mémoires d’un artiste, Paris, 1896).

Ingres’s passions for music (Gluck, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven), for literature (Plutarch, Virgil, Homer, Shakespeare, Dante and Vasari) and the visual arts (Raphael and Michelangelo) were deep and lifelong. His friends were friends for life, unless they crossed him, and nothing pleased him more than his favourite music in the company of a select circle of friends. As a student, he was seen as too serious, intolerant of the usual studio antics; as a teacher, although he often acted as a father figure to his favourite students, he brooked no opposition: ‘Discussion was, unfortunately, not possible with M. Ingres’ (Amaury-Duval, 1878, 2/1924, p. 61). And M. Ingres he remained, even to his family and closest friends.

IV. Critical reception and posthumous reputation.

Ingres alternated between pride and self-doubt, confidence and crisis. This insecurity was fuelled, and his development thwarted, both in early and mid-career, by constant harsh criticism. At first, he was considered too radical; later he was seen as representative of the moribund old guard. In one year only—1825—did he receive critical acclaim, when he was given the Cross of the Légion d’honneur, following the success of the Vow of Louis XIII that welcomed him back to France as champion of the classical style.

There is a marked difference between Ingres’s posthumous reputation as a leading figure of his school and the difficulty he had establishing and holding that place during his lifetime. Equally ironic, given Ingres’s absolute devotion to his calling as a history painter, is the fact that his portraits are now more widely appreciated than his history paintings. A retrospective exhibition of his work, including 587 paintings, drawings and oil sketches, was held in May 1867 at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts during the Exposition Universelle. It attracted 40,000 visitors.


  • R. Cogniet, ed.: Ingres, écrits sur l’art: Textes recueillis dans les carnets et dans la correspondance d’Ingres (Paris, 1947)
  • T. B. Brumbaugh: ‘A Group of Ingres Letters’, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 42–43 (1984–5), pp. 90–96 [five letters, 1845–54]

    See also Delaborde (1870), Courtheon, i (1947) and Ewals (1984).


  • E. Delécluze: David, son école & son temps: Souvenirs de soixante années (Paris, 1862)
  • E. A. Amaury-Duval: L’Atelier d’Ingres (Paris, 1878, 2/1924)
  • H. Lapauze: Histoire de l’Académie de France à Rome, 2 vols (Paris, 1924)
  • W. Friedlaender: Von David bis Delacroix (Bielefeld, 1930); Eng. trans. by R. Goldwater (Cambridge, MA, 1952)
  • David, Ingres, Géricault et leur temps (exh. cat., Paris, Ecole N. Sup. B.-A., 1934)
  • F. Lugt: Ventes (The Hague, 1938–64), 3, pp. 83–4, 563
  • J. Alazard: Ingres et l’Ingrisme (Paris, 1950)
  • P. Angrand: Monsieur Ingres et son époque (Lausanne, 1967)
  • The Age of Neo-classicism (exh. cat., foreword J. Pope-Hennessy; ACGB, 1972)
  • French Painting, 1774–1830: The Age of Revolution (exh. cat., preface P. Rosenberg; Paris, Grand Pal.; Detroit, MI, Inst. A.; New York, Met., 1974–5)
  • The Second Empire: Art in France under Napoleon III (exh. cat., ed. G. H. Marcus and J. M. Iandola; Philadelphia, PA, Mus. A.; Detroit, MI, Inst. A.; Paris, Grand Pal.; 1978–9)
Catalogues raisonnés
  • H. Delaborde: Ingres: Sa vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine, d’après les notes manuscrites et les lettres du maître (Paris, 1870) [d]
  • D. Wildenstein: The Paintings of J.-A.-D. Ingres (London, 1954, rev. 2/1956) [w] [the most useful source for tracing provenance]
  • E. Camesasca: L’opera completa di Ingres, intro. by E. Radius (Milan, 1968); Fr. trans. with add. mat. as Tout l’oeuvre peint d’Ingres, intro. by D. Ternois (Paris, 1971)
  • H. Naef: Die Bildniszeichnungen von J.-A.-D. Ingres, 5 vols (Berne, 1977–81) [n]
  • A. Magimel, ed.: Oeuvres de J.-A. Ingres, gravées au trait sur acier par A. Réveil, 1800–1851 (Paris, 1851)
  • C. Blanc: Ingres: Sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1870)
  • E. Gatteaux: Collection des 120 dessins, croquis et peintures de M. Ingres classés et mis en ordre par son ami Edouard Gatteaux, 2 vols (Paris, 1875)
  • L. Frölich-Blum: Ingres: Sein Leben und sein Stil (Vienna, 1911)
  • H. Lapauze: Ingres: Sa vie, et son oeuvre (Paris, 1911)
  • W. Pach: Ingres (New York, 1939)
  • P. Courtheon: Ingres raconté par lui-même et par ses amis, i: Pensées et écrits du peintre; ii: Ses contemporains, sa postérité (Geneva, 1947)
  • H. Naef: Ingres. Rom (Zurich, 1962)
  • R. Rosenblum: Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (New York, 1967)
  • J. Whiteley: Ingres (London, 1977)
  • D. Ternois: Ingres (Paris, 1980)
Museum and exhibition catalogues
  • Ingres (exh. cat., Paris, Gal. Martinet, 1861)
  • A. Cambon: Catalogue du Musée de Montauban (Montauban, 1885)
  • H. Lapauze: Les Dessins de J.-A.-D. Ingres du Musée de Montauban(Paris, 1901)
  • Portraits par Ingres et ses élèves (exh. cat. by C. Sterling, Paris, Gal. Jacques Seligmann, 1934)
  • A Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Drawings from the Ingres Museum at Montauban (exh. cat., intro. A. Mongan and D. Ternois; New York, Knoedler’s, 1952)
  • Ingres et ses maîtres, de Roques à David (exh. cat. by P. Mesplé and D. Ternois, Toulouse, Mus. Augustins; Montauban, Mus. Ingres; 1955)
  • Rome vue par Ingres (exh. cat., ed. H. Naef; Lausanne, 1960; Zurich, 1962; Montauban, Mus. Ingres, 1973)
  • D. Ternois: Montauban, Musée Ingres: Peintures, Ingres et son temps (1965), xi of Inventaire des collections publiques françaises(Paris, 1957–)
  • Ingres Centennial Exhibition, 1867–1967: Drawings, Watercolors and Oil Sketches from American Collections (exh. cat., ed. A. Mongan and H. Naef; Cambridge, MA, Fogg, 1967)
  • Ingres et son temps: Exposition organisée pour le centenaire de la mort d’Ingres (exh. cat. by D. Ternois and J. Lacambe, Montauban, Mus. Ingres, 1967)
  • Ingres (exh. cat., ed. L. Duclaux, J. Foucart, H. Naef and D. Ternois; Paris, Petit Pal., 1967–8) [with excellent bibliog.]
  • Ingres in Italia: 1806–1824, 1835–1841 (exh. cat. by J. Foucart, Rome, Villa Medici, 1968)
  • M. Cohn and S. Siegfried: Works by J.-A.-D. Ingres in the Collection of the Fogg Art Museum (Cambridge, MA, Fogg, 1980)
  • Ingres (exh. cat. by M. Ikuta and others, Tokyo, N. Mus. W. A.; Osaka, N. Mus. A.; 1981)
  • In Pursuit of Perfection: The Art of J.-A.-D. Ingres (exh. cat., ed. P. Condon; Louisville, KY, Speed A. Mus.; Fort Worth, TX, Kimbell A. Mus.; 1983–4)
Subject-matter and iconography
  • J. Alazard: ‘Ce que J.-D. Ingres doit aux primitifs italiens’, Gazette des beaux-arts [suppl. is Chron. A.], 2 (1936), pp. 167–75
  • E. King: ‘Ingres as a Classicist’, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 5 (1942), pp. 69–113
  • A. Mongan: ‘Ingres and the Antique’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes [prev. pubd as J. Warb. Inst.], 10 (1947), pp. 1–13
  • D. Ternois: ‘Les Sources iconographiques de l’Apothéose d’Homère’, Bulletin de la Société archéologique de Tarn-et-Garonne(1954–5), 97–108
  • H. Naef: ‘Paolo und Francesca: Zum Problem der schöpferischen Nachahmung bei Ingres’, Zeitschrift für Kunstwissenschaft [prev. pubd as & cont. as Z. Dt. Ver. Kstwiss.], 10 (1956), pp. 97–108
  • N. Schlenoff: Ingres, ses sources littéraires (Paris, 1956)
  • Ingres and the Comtesse d’Haussonville (exh. cat. by E. Munhall, New York, Frick, 1985)
Specialist studies
  • H. Delaborde: ‘Les Dessins de M. Ingres au Salon des Arts-Unis’, Gazette des beaux-arts [suppl. is Chron. A.], 9 (1861), pp. 257–69
  • C. Blanc: ‘Du Style et de M. Ingres’, Gazette des beaux-arts [suppl. is Chron. A.], 14 (1863), pp. 5–23
  • H. Schwarz: ‘Die Lithographien J. A. D. Ingres’, Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst [prev. pubd as Chron. Vervielfält. Kst] (1926), pp. 74–9
  • Bulletin du Musée Ingres (1956–)
  • E. Bryant: ‘Notes on J. A. D. Ingres’ Entry into Paris of the Dauphin, Future Charles V’, Wadsworth Atheneum Bulletin [prev. pubd as Wadsworth Atheneum News Bull.; Wadsworth Atheneum & Morgan Mem. Bull.], 5th ser., 3 (1959), pp. 16–21
  • M. J. Ternois: ‘Les Oeuvres d’Ingres dans la collection Gilibert’, Revue de l’art [Paris], 3 (1959), pp. 120–30
  • H. Naef: ‘Un Tableau d’Ingres inachevé: Le Duc d’Albe à Sainte-Gudule’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, 7 (1960), pp. 3–6
  • H. Naef: ‘Ingres as Lithographer’, Burlington Magazine(1966), pp. 476–9
  • Actes du colloque Ingres et son temps: Montauban, 1967
  • D. Ternois: ‘Ingres et sa méthode’, Revue du Louvre et des musées de France, 4 (1967), pp. 195–208
  • D. Ternois: ‘Napoléon et la décoration du palais impérial de Monte Cavallo en 1811–13’, Revue de l’art [Paris], 7 (1970), pp. 68–89
  • J. Connolly: Ingres Studies: Antiochus and Stratonice, the Bather and Odalisque Themes (diss., Philadelphia, U. PA, 1974)
  • Actes du colloque Ingres et le néo-classicisme: Montauban, 1975
  • C. Duncan: ‘Ingres’s Vow of Louis XIII and the Politics of the Restoration’, Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics, ed. H. Millon and L. Nochlin (Cambridge, MA, 1978), pp. 80–91
  • M. Lader: ‘Gorky, De Kooning and the “Ingres Revival” in America’, Arts Magazine [prev. pubd as Arts [New York]; A. Dig.] (March 1978), pp. 94–9
  • S. Symmons: ‘J. A. D. Ingres: The Apotheosis of Flaxman’, Burlington Magazine, 121 (1979), pp. 721–5
  • Actes du colloque Ingres et son influence: Montauban, 1980
  • M. Méras: ‘Théophile Gautier critique officiel d’Ingres au Moniteur’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, 47–8 (1980), pp. 205–19
  • S. Siegfried: Ingres and his Critics, 1806–1824 (diss., Cambridge, MA, Harvard U., 1980)
  • P. Angrand: ‘Le Premier Atelier de Monsieur Ingres’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, 49 (1982), pp. 19–58 [with bibliog.]
  • F. Haskell: ‘A Turk and his Pictures in Nineteenth-century Paris’, Oxford Art Journal, 5/1 (1982), pp. 40–47
  • C. Ockman: The Restoration of the Château of Dampierre: Ingres, the Duc de Luynes and an Unrealized Vision of History (diss., New Haven, CT, Yale U., 1982)
  • A. D. Rifkin: ‘Ingres and the Academic Dictionary: An Essay on Ideology and Stupefaction in the Social Formation of the Artist’, Art History, 6 (1983), pp. 153–70
  • L. Ewals: ‘Ingres et la réception de l’art français en Hollande avec des lettres inédites de David, Gérard, Ingres, Vernet, Delaroche, Decamps et Rousseau’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, 53–4 (1984), pp. 21–42
  • A. Boime: ‘Declassicizing the Academic: A Realist View of Ingres’, Art History, 8 (1985), pp. 50–65
  • C. de Couossin: ‘Portraits d’Ingres: Examen du laboratoire’, Revue du Louvre et des musées de France, 34 (1985), pp. 197–206
  • P. Condon: J.-A.-D. Ingres: The Finished History Drawings (diss., Providence, RI, Brown U., 1986)
  • D. Ternois: ‘La Correspondance d’Ingres: Etat des travaux et problèmes de méthode’, Archives de l’art français [cont. as Nouv. Archvs A. Fr.; Archvs A. Fr.], n. s., 28 (1986), pp. 161–200
  • B. Ivry: ‘Right under his Nose’, Connoisseur, 220 (1990), pp. 126–9, 156